Sharpshooter Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I have, and I really have no idea what you're talking about. Paul is all for civil liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I don't think you've thought out the 'libertarian' part of his platform all the way through just yet. 'Liberty' sounds great though, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 lol anyone hear Joe Biden's comments? regarding Romney, "they gonna put ya'll back in chains" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 lol anyone hear Joe Biden's comments? regarding Romney, "they gonna put ya'll back in chains" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I would rather have no money than no dad . there are a lot of other things they can cut the funding for before they cut funding to the health-care system ,my country and yours manage to run efficent health- care systems while not going broke in the process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tystick Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I don't think you've thought out the 'libertarian' part of his platform all the way through just yet. 'Liberty' sounds great though, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I have officially washed my hands of all of this...this government...the lies and the ****ing lying liars who tell them...can all go straight to hell...not pass go...until the entire party system is dismantled...there will never truly be any freedoms in the US....wake up and smell the decomposing roses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 If the US keeps down it's current path soon enough people in your situation won't have money or their dad. Think shanty town great depression era. I know it's hard to understand the big picture when it hits you personally but there's going to be a lot of hard choices America (and soon enough Canada we have our own ticking time bomb even if nobody wants to acknowlege it) will have to make or else run the peril of having even harder decisions made for them. Bankrupt is bankrupt and if people won't lend you money it won't matter how compelling a case you can make for how to spend it if it plain does not exist. But cheer up! In "good" news the two things people on the left advocate the most (or better stated are hated by the republicans) are an increase in taxes (particularily to the rich) and a big decrease in military spending. Well, as the states goes off the fiscal cliff those will be enacted automatically and unless the Republicans win a super-majority in both houses and the presidentcy the democrats can use the same moves the Republicans used on them to stop any reversal of those policies. Granted they also have cuts to healthcare built in but keep in mind that even with those tax increases and drastic spending cuts in the cliff the massive deficits of the government would simply be big deficits - there's still a long way to go to getting the books in order and until that is done everything people rely on the government to provide is in jepordy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I don't think you've thought out the 'libertarian' part of his platform all the way through just yet. 'Liberty' sounds great though, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 My parents who i see most days lived through the depression , dad lived on a couple of potato's a day for periods of time , mum did it slightly better here in australia , so i am personally aware how tough times affect people. i reiterate that if canada and australia can manage to run reasonably efficent health-care systems , then the largest economy on earth should be able to as well Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Actually blowing it all up and starting over both on domestic and foreign policy would be a good first step. Better to do it on purpose in a controlled manner than the current greek method of being forced to because noone will lend you money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I agree .. but the "special interests" who control North America will not let that happen until they are faced with the "guillotine" .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mastaj Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Our own healthcare system takes 50% of the provincial budget and is currently under a charter challenge due to the increadible wait times. And this is BEFORE the increadible demographic switch towards having many, many more users of the health care system and far less people paying in with all of this being on the heels of Canadians themselves only maintaining their current standard of living through a growing credit bubble (now average 160% debt to income per Canadian) which has Canadians already stretched during a period of record low interest rates. I wouldn't count on Canada (not sure about Australia but it's safe to say they have many of the same problems - I know they have the debt and demographic ones) being able to support the system in anything that even vaguely resembles it's current form. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Please stop perpetuating this myth. Yes, we have wait times - but not for critical care. And there has been a concerted effort over the past 10 years to reduce wait times for things like knee, hip, and other joint replacements (which is where the majority of the wait time myth comes from). The US has better wait times for non-critical and elective procedures - but ONLY for those who can afford it. They do not have better wait times for urgent or critical care. For me, I would much rather have our entire population covered for healthcare, than have lower wait times for the rich. I'm not saying our healthcare system is perfect - far from it. I've worked in healthcare for most of my adult life, so I am acutely aware of the many problems. But I much prefer it to the US, or frankly even the NHS of the UK. But I digress, this is a bit off topic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 The couldn't get cloture because they didn't have the 60 votes needed, in a super-majority, to bring the bill forward. They also had to deal with some of the DINO Blue Dogs in the party. The Dems are not as monolithic as the Repubs. That's the reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Please stop perpetuating this myth. Yes, we have wait times - but not for critical care. And there has been a concerted effort over the past 10 years to reduce wait times for things like knee, hip, and other joint replacements (which is where the majority of the wait time myth comes from). The US has better wait times for non-critical and elective procedures - but ONLY for those who can afford it. They do not have better wait times for urgent or critical care. For me, I would much rather have our entire population covered for healthcare, than have lower wait times for the rich. I'm not saying our healthcare system is perfect - far from it. I've worked in healthcare for most of my adult life, so I am acutely aware of the many problems. But I much prefer it to the US, or frankly even the NHS of the UK. But I digress, this is a bit off topic.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I prefer our healthcare system to the US as well but that doesn't mean our's is perfect (aka I agree). However, whether or not we can continue to afford it when it's already taking 50% of our tax dollars even before all the baby boomers retire in a country where we are at an all time low when it comes to being in personal debt is going to be an issue going forward no matter how much people wish it not to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Republicans never had a supermajority in the Senate yet they got everything they wanted during the Bush years when Republicans controlled Congress as well. Democrats had a supermajority (60 votes) for only some 4-6 months during Obama's tenure but no surprise accomplished nothing. Surely they could see the writings on the wall that they had a mandate to do their bidding.. and did nothing with it but mainly re-emphasize Bush policies of lower taxes, excessive spending, and a continuation of laughable foreign policy, laughable drug policy, and doing their best to negate individual rights by reiterating how necessary Bush's warrantless wiretaps are. Can you elaborate? I've seen nothing but general statements about Paul that reflect mainly typical two-party talk I expect from Americans. Well put. No surprise some of us who have experienced both countries' healthcare system over long periods of time better understand their drawbacks or benefits. For the better of the populace is not one person's sibling or family member, it's a state where the costs of healthcare can be tabulated. Right now the US healthcare system is one run amok where the actual costs can only be estimated, it's well known it's outrageously high.. and because the large number of hospitals in the US that are publicly funded have to take patients who are not insured, the taxpayer foots an even larger burden of high cost to cover for a lack of insurance when uninsured hospital patient, in most cases, cannot pay their egregious bill. This is why Obamacare is a fail, because rather than reducing costs or coming up with a single payer system where one can take taxes and offset the cost, it tosses a pile of debt first to fund the system which is around a trillion dollars, and automatically assumes revenue later. It's really only the CBO that assumes Obamacare can bring revenue but the CBO has been off by large margins (~10-35% in the few years I've looked) when using their fiscal budget projections versus when expenses are paid for the year they projected. All-in-all, this is an ugly mess that isn't in the slightest sense being fixed, but typical of the US government, tossing a nice dressing over a problem and doing their best to put off for the next generation to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 One word .. "filibuster" .. fil·i·bus·ter (fl-bstr) n. 1. a. The use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking, for the purpose of delaying legislative action. b. An instance of the use of this delaying tactic. 2. An adventurer who engages in a private military action in a foreign country. v. fil·i·bus·tered, fil·i·bus·ter·ing, fil·i·bus·ters v.intr. 1. To use obstructionist tactics in a legislative body. 2. To take part in a private military action in a foreign country. v.tr. To use a filibuster against (a legislative measure, for example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tearloch7 Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Can you say "Blue Dog"?? .. thought so .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.